Abstract:Introduction
Currently, the water deprivation test remains the standard method for distinguishing primary polydipsia (PP) from cranial diabetes insipidus (cDI) and nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (nDI). There is increasing interest in a direct estimate of antidiuretic hormone using plasma copeptin as a stable and reliable surrogate marker. We present our experience of measuring copeptin during the water deprivation test.
Methods
Forty‐seven people (17 men) underwent a standard water deprivation test between 201… Show more
Introduction
Currently, the water deprivation test remains the standard method for distinguishing primary polydipsia (PP) from cranial diabetes insipidus (cDI) and nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (nDI). There is increasing interest in a direct estimate of antidiuretic hormone using plasma copeptin as a stable and reliable surrogate marker. We present our experience of measuring copeptin during the water deprivation test.
Methods
Forty‐seven people (17 men) underwent a standard water deprivation test between 2013 and 2021. Plasma copeptin was measured at the start of the test and at the end of the period of water deprivation (maximum osmotic stimulation). Results were classified using prespecified diagnostic criteria. As it is known that a significant proportion of tests will reveal indeterminate results, a final diagnosis was obtained by including relevant pre‐ and post‐test clinical criteria. This diagnosis was then used to plan individual treatment.
Results
Basal and stimulated copeptin were significantly higher in the nephrogenic DI group than other categories (p < .001). There was no significant difference in basal or stimulated copeptin between PP, cDI or partial DI. Nine results were indeterminate where the serum and urine osmolality did not give a unified diagnosis. Stimulated copeptin was helpful in reclassifying these patients into the final diagnostic groups.
Conclusion
Plasma copeptin has additional clinical utility in interpretation of the water deprivation test and may continue to have a place alongside newer stimulation tests.
Introduction
Currently, the water deprivation test remains the standard method for distinguishing primary polydipsia (PP) from cranial diabetes insipidus (cDI) and nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (nDI). There is increasing interest in a direct estimate of antidiuretic hormone using plasma copeptin as a stable and reliable surrogate marker. We present our experience of measuring copeptin during the water deprivation test.
Methods
Forty‐seven people (17 men) underwent a standard water deprivation test between 2013 and 2021. Plasma copeptin was measured at the start of the test and at the end of the period of water deprivation (maximum osmotic stimulation). Results were classified using prespecified diagnostic criteria. As it is known that a significant proportion of tests will reveal indeterminate results, a final diagnosis was obtained by including relevant pre‐ and post‐test clinical criteria. This diagnosis was then used to plan individual treatment.
Results
Basal and stimulated copeptin were significantly higher in the nephrogenic DI group than other categories (p < .001). There was no significant difference in basal or stimulated copeptin between PP, cDI or partial DI. Nine results were indeterminate where the serum and urine osmolality did not give a unified diagnosis. Stimulated copeptin was helpful in reclassifying these patients into the final diagnostic groups.
Conclusion
Plasma copeptin has additional clinical utility in interpretation of the water deprivation test and may continue to have a place alongside newer stimulation tests.
The elucidation of the underlying cause of polyuria‐polydipsia syndrome (PPS) is a challenging—especially in the differentiation of partial defects of arginine vasopressin (AVP) secretion or action from primary polydipsia. The water deprivation test has been utilized for many decades, and its application in the paediatric population has been applied using parameters predominantly established in adult cohorts. In more recent times, the development of automated commercial assays for copeptin, a surrogate marker for AVP, has represented a significant advancement in the diagnostic approach to PPS. Measurement of copeptin concentrations has major advantages and has essentially superseded measurement of AVP in diagnostic protocols for PPS. Additionally, stimulated‐copeptin protocols utilizing hypertonic saline infusion, arginine, and glucagon have been investigated, and are promising. However, further studies are required in the population—incorporating the differences in physiological regulation of water homeostasis, and safety requirements—before there is widespread adoption into clinical practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.